I get this and I don’t disagree, but I also hate that AI fully brought back thought crimes as a thing.
I don’t have a better approach or idea, but I really don’t like that simply drawing a certain arrangement of lines and colors is now a crime. I’ve also seen a lot of positive sentiment at applying this to other forms of porn as well, ones less universally hated.
Not supporting this use case at all and on balance I think this is the best option we have, but I do think thought crimes as a concept are just as concerning, especially given the current political climate.
Sure, i think it’s weird to really care about loli or furry or any other niche, but ai generating material of actual children (and unwilling people besides) is actually harmful. If they can’t have effective safeguards against that harm it makes sense to restrict it legally.
Making porn of actual people without their consent regardless of age is not a thought crime. For children, that’s obviously fucked up. For adults it’s directly impacting their reputation. It’s not a victimless crime.
But generating images of adults that don’t exist? Or even clearly drawn images that aren’t even realistic? I’ve seen a lot of people (from both sides of the political spectrum) advocate that these should be illegal if the content is what they consider icky.
Like let’s take bestiality for example. Obviously gross and definitely illegal in real life. But should a cartoon drawing of the act really be illegal? No one was abused. No reputation was damaged. No illegal act took place. It was simply someone’s fucked up fantasy. Yet lots of people want to make that into a thought crime.
I’ve always thought that if there isn’t speech out there that makes you feel icky or gross then you don’t really have free speech at all. The way you keep free speech as a right necessarily requires you to sometimes fight for the right of others to say or draw or write stuff that you vehemently disagree with, but recognize as not actually causing harm to a real person.
You can insist every frame of Bart Simspon’s dick in The Simpsons Movie should be as illegal as photographic evidence of child rape, but that does not make them the same thing. The entire point of the term CSAM is that it’s the actual real evidence of child rape. It is nonsensical to use the term for any other purpose.
“CSAM (“see-sam”) refers to any visual content—photos, videos, livestreams, or AI-generated images—that shows a child being sexually abused or exploited.”
“Any content that sexualizes or exploits a child for the viewer’s benefit” <- AI goes here.
RAINN has completely lost the plot by conflating the explicit term for Literal Photographic Evidence Of An Event Where A Child Was Raped with made-up bullshit.
We will inevitably develop some other term like LPEOAEWACWR, and confused idiots will inevitably misuse that to refer to drawings, and it will be the exact same shit I’m complaining about right now.
Child pornography (CP), also known as child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and by more informal terms such as kiddie porn, is erotic material that involves or depicts persons under the designated age of majority.
[…]
Laws regarding child pornography generally include sexual images involving prepubescents, pubescent, or post-pubescent minors and computer-generated images that appear to involve them.
(Emphasis mine)
It’s too hard to tell real CSAM from AI-generated CSAM. Safest to treat it all as CSAM.
I get this and I don’t disagree, but I also hate that AI fully brought back thought crimes as a thing.
I don’t have a better approach or idea, but I really don’t like that simply drawing a certain arrangement of lines and colors is now a crime. I’ve also seen a lot of positive sentiment at applying this to other forms of porn as well, ones less universally hated.
Not supporting this use case at all and on balance I think this is the best option we have, but I do think thought crimes as a concept are just as concerning, especially given the current political climate.
Sure, i think it’s weird to really care about loli or furry or any other niche, but ai generating material of actual children (and unwilling people besides) is actually harmful. If they can’t have effective safeguards against that harm it makes sense to restrict it legally.
Making porn of actual people without their consent regardless of age is not a thought crime. For children, that’s obviously fucked up. For adults it’s directly impacting their reputation. It’s not a victimless crime.
But generating images of adults that don’t exist? Or even clearly drawn images that aren’t even realistic? I’ve seen a lot of people (from both sides of the political spectrum) advocate that these should be illegal if the content is what they consider icky.
Like let’s take bestiality for example. Obviously gross and definitely illegal in real life. But should a cartoon drawing of the act really be illegal? No one was abused. No reputation was damaged. No illegal act took place. It was simply someone’s fucked up fantasy. Yet lots of people want to make that into a thought crime.
I’ve always thought that if there isn’t speech out there that makes you feel icky or gross then you don’t really have free speech at all. The way you keep free speech as a right necessarily requires you to sometimes fight for the right of others to say or draw or write stuff that you vehemently disagree with, but recognize as not actually causing harm to a real person.
You can insist every frame of Bart Simspon’s dick in The Simpsons Movie should be as illegal as photographic evidence of child rape, but that does not make them the same thing. The entire point of the term CSAM is that it’s the actual real evidence of child rape. It is nonsensical to use the term for any other purpose.
You are completely wrong.
https://rainn.org/get-the-facts-about-csam-child-sexual-abuse-material/what-is-csam/
“CSAM (“see-sam”) refers to any visual content—photos, videos, livestreams, or AI-generated images—that shows a child being sexually abused or exploited.”
“Any content that sexualizes or exploits a child for the viewer’s benefit” <- AI goes here.
RAINN has completely lost the plot by conflating the explicit term for Literal Photographic Evidence Of An Event Where A Child Was Raped with made-up bullshit.
We will inevitably develop some other term like LPEOAEWACWR, and confused idiots will inevitably misuse that to refer to drawings, and it will be the exact same shit I’m complaining about right now.
Dude, you’re the only one who uses that strict definition. Go nuts with your course of prescriptivism but I’m pretty sure it’s a lost cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography
‘These several things are illegal, including the real thing and several made-up things.’
Please stop misusing the term that explicitly refers to the the real thing.
‘No.’
deleted by creator